1920s Election, 1990s Style

Michael J. Ring

The American nation has always struggled with the contrast between the
Puritans and the party-goers. The Yankee work ethic and emphasis on
societal intervention contrasts with the Jeffersonian ideals of personal
liberty and individual freedom. Throughout the political history of our
nation, these differences have manifested themselves not only in the
conflicting ideologies of candidates, but also in conflicting backgrounds,
personalities, and characters.

Perhaps no election underscores such character differences than does the
presidential election of 1928. The Republican candidate, Herbert Hoover,
was a quiet, shy Iowa Quaker. He was opposed by Al Smith, a loud,
boisterous New York Catholic. The two candidates could not have come from
more different surroundings or have had more contrasting dispositions.

On the question of Prohibition, one of the most important issues in that
campaign, the two candidates' social and personal backgrounds influenced
their political ideologies. Hoover, coming from a rural, largely
fundamentalist environment, dubbed Prohibition "a great social and economic
experiment." Smith, the governor of a state with large immigrant
populations and the grandson of Irish immigrants, vigorously opposed
Prohibition.

Seventy years later, the gubernatorial election of Massachusetts will
offer the political spectator many of the same complexities and contrasts.
The citizens of the Commonwealth, however, will also face several important
differences between this race and the Hoover-Smith contest.

In this election, the Puritan is the Democrat, Attorney General L. Scott
Harshbarger. He is expected to dispose of his three primary challengers.
The party-goer is the Republican, Acting Governor A. Paul Cellucci, who
will likely turn back a bloody primary challenge from Treasurer Joseph D.
Malone.

Scott Harshbarger and Paul Cellucci could not be more different in style
and personality. Harshbarger is the son of a minister while Cellucci the
son of an auto dealer. Harshbarger went to Harvard while Cellucci studied
at Boston College. Harshbarger is a member of the Church of the Brethren
while Cellucci worships as a Roman Catholic. Harshbarger is perceived as a
political outsider, having aggressively prosecuted both Republicans and
Democrats during his tenure as Attorney General. Cellucci is seen as a
political insider, having been continuously involved in Beacon Hill
politics since his election as State Representative in 1976.

Many of their respective stances follow naturally from their
backgrounds. Harshbarger has made tobacco crackdown a personal crusade; he
has frequently challenged the industry in court. Cellucci is a follower,
rather than a leader, on the issue. The two also strongly differ on
gambling. Harshbarger is vehemently opposed to a Native-American-developed
bingo hall in the economically depressed city of Fall River and has
promised to make full use of the courts to stop gaming expansion in
Massachusetts. Cellucci supports the Fall River bingo hall agreement
reached by his predecessor, William F. Weld.

On this issue of gaming one can see a clear difference between the
trustworthiness of the two candidates, and again our tale twists back to
1928. In that year questions of honesty dogged Al Smith, a son of New
York's Tammany Hall machine. Smith himself was not a corrupt ward boss, but
he paid dearly for the sins of political corruption and peddling committed
by his predecessors, such as William Marcy Tweed and William Croker. In our
modern-day examination, however, the ethical questions dogging Cellucci
were not created by his predecessors but by himself. And there are plenty
of questions to which the citizens of the Commonwealth should demand
answers.

It is not surprising that Paul Cellucci would be a strong advocate of
expanding gaming, because it seems Paul has a penchant for the ponies out
at Suffolk Downs. And for a while he couldn't handle a credit card either:
All in all, Cellucci rang up a cool $750K in personal debt, according to a
Boston Globe expose from 1996. Remember, this is from a man who brands
himself a fiscal conservative and claims to be able to manage a $19 billion
per year budget.

There are many other examples of the trustworthiness, or lack thereof,
of the Acting Governor. He paints himself to independent, upper-class
suburbanites as Weld's co-governor, trying to keep one of Weld's core
constituencies from defecting to Harshbarger. Yet on the issue of the
environment, an issue of great concern to many of these citizens, Paul
Cellucci takes a dive. Instead of towing Weld's good record on the
environment, Cellucci crossed his former boss. His veto of the Cape Cod
Land Bank bill, and successful pressure to defeat a related referendum,
leaves the jewel of the Massachusetts seacoast with severely inadequate
protection from further ravaging by development.

In his misguided fervor Cellucci not only ignores his self-touted role
as "co-go governor" but also the moral principles which he personally
espoused before being launched to higher office. When the death penalty
bill was debated last year, Paul Cellucci ran around the State House
screaming at supposedly out-of-touch state representatives voting against
the bill. Yet, as a state senator, he provided one of the most consistent
votes against the death penalty throughout the 1980s. Cellucci, in effect,
criticized members of the General Court for deferring to their personal
moral judgments on an issue when he himself used the same judgment for over
a decade.

Scott Harshbarger offers a breath of fresh, honest air from the
maddening insanity surrounding Paul Cellucci. He makes the tough decisions
and sticks to them. The Attorney General is unafraid to go to Fall River
and express his disdain for the bingo hall. He has relentlessly prosecuted
dishonest politicians, both Republican and Democrat, during his tenure as
Attorney General.

In fact, Harshbarger is disliked by many Democrats for the fair and
honest way in which he executed of the office of Attorney General. Ray
Flynn, former mayor of Boston and another Democrat gubernatorial candidate,
is said to be furious at Harshbarger for his investigation of the Flynn
machine, a probe which ended in the conviction of several members of
Flynn's inner circle. But who among the objective citizenry would say
Harshbarger was wrong to prosecute fellow Democrats if they were breaking
the law? Indeed, the Attorney General is a man of valor and honor who
executes his duties with a sense of justice and decency, not patronage or
pay-back.

Like the federal election of seventy years hence, this year's
Massachusetts gubernatorial election will offer two candidates who sharply
contrast in personality and character. Seventy years ago, the American
voters turned away from Al Smith because of the faint whiff of corruption
and dishonesty which surrounded him and picked the more puritanical Hoover.
Considering that surrounding Paul Cellucci is not a trace but an
overwhelming stench of hypocrisy, broken promises, and ethical questions,
we all must hope the citizens of this Commonwealth show the same
disposition as those who employed presidential suffrage seventy years ago.
The clear choice in this race for integrity, prudence, and discretion is
Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger.